Federal Circuit Clarifies Venue Rule for Foreign Defendants Post-TC Heartland

The Federal Circuit today in In re HTC Corp., Misc. 2018-130 (May 5, 2018), followed the holding of the Supreme Court in Brunette Machine Works, Ltd. v. Kockum Industries, Inc., 406 U.S. 706 (1972), that venue is proper as to a foreign defendant in any district. In so doing, the court found that recent amendments to the venue statutes did not change the conclusion in Brunette and rejected the argument that the patent venue statute should apply to foreign defendants.

In TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017), the Supreme Court ruled that venue in patent cases is governed by the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), and overruled a line of cases from the Federal Circuit that had instead applied the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Beginning in 1990 with VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 917 F.2d 1574, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the Federal Circuit held that a 1988 amendment to § 1391 meant that the general venue statute, and not the patent venue statute, governed venue in patent cases. The Supreme Court disagreed that the relatively minor amendment to § 1391 could have been intended by Congress to abrogate the patent venue statute.

The Court’s holding in TC Heartland has had a dramatic impact on the patent litigation landscape, significantly reducing the availability of some popular patent forums like the Eastern District of Texas. However, left undecided in TC Heartland was its effect on foreign defendants. Indeed, the TC Heartland Court specifically declined to opine on whether § 1400(b) applied to foreign corporations:

The parties dispute the implications of petitioner’s argument for foreign corporations. We do not here address that question, nor do we express any opinion on this Court’s holding in Brunette Machine Works, Ltd. v. Kockum Industries, Inc., 406 U.S. 706, 92 S.Ct. 1936, 32 L.Ed.2d 428 (1972) (determining proper venue for foreign corporation under then existing statutory regime).

TC Heartland, 137 S. Ct. at 1520 n.2.

The Federal Circuit today found that venue for foreign corporations is governed by the general venue statute, which provides that “a defendant not resident in the United States may be sued in any judicial district.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3). The court based its ruling on the long statutory and judicial history, including Supreme Court decisions in 1893 and 1972, that aliens can be sued in any judicial district. And, as the Supreme Court had reasoned in TC Heartland, the Federal Circuit found that subsequent amendments to the venue statute were not sufficient to overcome this long-established rule. Accordingly, it is now clear that, subject to questions of personal jurisdiction, a foreign corporation can be sued in any district.

Disclaimer

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.